Assume the grip size, string type and tension, style of swing and air temp are all the same. Furthermore, assume that I have no preference to either racquet, but if I develop arm issues later on, i will have to deep six my stiffer frames.

As to my level, I'm a middling 3.0 player who has been coached. I win 50% of my matches.

If you rated yourself 4.0, it would help the analysis.
As a 3.0 rating (I'm sure you're better), your strokes would be too inconsistent to judge, and by your wording "assume", we deduce they are NOT the same, and that you are now talking theory in a real world enviorment.
Go fly an F-23. Can you tell the designers what is wrong and what is right?

Thanks. So if i was using an IG Rad Pro in place of the MP, then perhaps I could swing just as fast and still keep it in play?

Maybe. But the Bab also has the woofer grommets which allow strings to move move more freely and could be producing more spin as well.

But I think the Rad pro would perform closer.

Also, 2 16X19 patterns might not have the same density of string in the hitting area, and can perform differently. I've played multiple 16X19 racquets and they all perform differently in spin production.

I tend to side with the scientist when it comes to things like spin production and power potential of racquets.

"Feel" is something else that you can't measure, but in the case of feel, racquet specs and other peoples reviews can be of help or completely useless, it all depends. So, get past the feel aspect and acknowledge we're all different, and embrace some real analysis. It won't hurt you. If you want to ignore it all and go purely on your instincts, that's your choice.

Scientists can never rule the world because their judgement is always, at best questionable. They see the world as black or white, right or wrong.
So how can they make decisions on human interactions? They can't.
My g/f is a scientist, working for YOU.
You cannot isolate the human equation out of the question.

ChicagoJack is implying (and I don't necessarily disagree with him) that the science behind the "myth of power" is that it is just that: a myth. Flexy vs. stiff, doesn't matter. A high SW flexy stick vs. a low SW stiff stick should produce virtually the same amount of power.

Again I don't disagree, I just want to know why it is that I experience two different things when I feel like I shouldn't.
And yes, it could be my inexperience. I'm not an awesome player, I have many faults with my strokes. But I am trying to improve my game.

I hit more winners, more aces and more shots stay in-bounds with a stiff APD, compared to a low powered, high SW, flexy "player's stick". All in all, I just "feel like" I'm hitting a faster ball with it.

But here's the thing: I don't *want* that to be the case. I don't want to use the APD, i want to use players sticks because they are better for my wrist. They produce no pain, and are softer on my arm. I just seem to lose more with them. So i use the APD so I can actually "win" matches.

I use the same string with all my racquets, I do my own string jobs, I use the same over grips and dampeners, so I try to keep all my different branded-sticks as similar as possible.

I just want to know what I need to do, as a player, so that I can keep using a Radical and win just as often as by using an APD. It could very well mean more coaching, i admit that. But if it turns out that due to the way that I play my game, if a lightweight stiff frame is the only thing that's going to ensure that I win matches, then I ought to take out an insurance policy on my arm!

Maybe you can't handle the higher SW of the flexier stick.
Like me. I went from 12.4 oz and 12.7 oz DunlopMfil and Aero 200's to their 500's, lost 2+ oz, went 8 points stiffer, and play much better. Hit a little worse.
Hitting is completely different than playing.
Lighter is more precise.

ChicagoJack is implying (and I don't necessarily disagree with him) that the science behind the "myth of power" is that it is just that: a myth. Flexy vs. stiff, doesn't matter. A high SW flexy stick vs. a low SW stiff stick should produce virtually the same amount of power.

Again I don't disagree, I just want to know why it is that I experience two different things when I feel like I shouldn't.
And yes, it could be my inexperience. I'm not an awesome player, I have many faults with my strokes. But I am trying to improve my game.

I hit more winners, more aces and more shots stay in-bounds with a stiff APD, compared to a low powered, high SW, flexy "player's stick". All in all, I just "feel like" I'm hitting a faster ball with it.

But here's the thing: I don't *want* that to be the case. I don't want to use the APD, i want to use players sticks because they are better for my wrist. They produce no pain, and are softer on my arm. I just seem to lose more with them. So i use the APD so I can actually "win" matches.

I use the same string with all my racquets, I do my own string jobs, I use the same over grips and dampeners, so I try to keep all my different branded-sticks as similar as possible.

I just want to know what I need to do, as a player, so that I can keep using a Radical and win just as often as by using an APD. It could very well mean more coaching, i admit that. But if it turns out that due to the way that I play my game, if a lightweight stiff frame is the only thing that's going to ensure that I win matches, then I ought to take out an insurance policy on my arm!

Thanks.

The comparison should be made by finding a racquet with the same exact specs as an APD including string pattern, but just more flexible....not sure if it's out there, you might have to lead up a lighweight players stick to get there.

Yeah cool, your post #50 is a bit over simplified, but it's mostly correct. There's a little bit of difference in power with a stiff frame at the very tip and towards the very bottom of the stringbed, but when you hit the center of the strings, the stiffness of a frame makes little or no difference with regards to rebound power.

By the way, I'm going off line till late tonight. My models are done rendering... back to the world that has nothing at all to do with tennis racquets. (frowny face)

Yeah cool, your post #50 is a bit over simplified, but it's mostly correct. There's a little bit of difference in power with a stiff frame at the very tip and towards the very bottom of the stringbed, but when you hit the center of the strings, the stiffness of a frame makes little or no difference with regards to rebound power.

By the way, I'm going off line till late tonight. My models are done rendering... back to the world that has nothing at all to do with tennis racquets. (frowny face)

Anubis,
For what it's worth, here's what I took from Jack's information:

I can now look at racquets that are a comfortable swingweight, balance, grip size, head size, etc, for me personally, and then pick the most flexible one, which I find more comfortable. I can do this safely, in the knowledge that this is not affecting the power of the racquet greatly, aside from the odd time when I might hit from the tip or base of the stringbed. I've actually found the whole conversation quite liberating! Good luck with your racquet search.

Howdy troops - here's my take on the issues of "power" (yes, issues plural) among racquets with different heft and flex. Just my perspective though...

I grew up playing serve & volley tennis, so this gave me a keen appreciation for a frame with some stability around the net along with a nice measure of "pop" to put some authority behind both my volleys and serves. My ProStaff 6.1 Classics were wonderful for that sort of work and they also had enough head-light balance to be rather maneuverable for me.

When I started spending more time around the baseline, those 6.1 Classics forced me to reign in my strokes enough to keep the ball down on the court, but eventually I tried out some more flexible alternatives, including the LM Radical mp, Prince NXG, and Volkl C10 Pro. The response or liveliness of these softer frames was generally more mellow for me, but that meant that I found a greater sense of control and consistency with the flexible racquets - I no longer needed to hold back like I did with the 6.1's.

So while a stiffer frame may seem to "have" more power in the form of that extra zip off the string bed, my softer racquets let me play with more power. I can take significantly bigger rips at the ball with my C10's and still keep it in the court. I should note that I've tried a couple racquets that seemed just too soft and lifeless for me despite their weight, but I've also sampled a couple of stiff frames that felt under-powered for me because they had no weight to them.

In Lee's defense, I think that this individual fit is tough to nail down just because swing speeds and styles vary a lot out there. The optimum racquet response for each of us will boil down to a somewhat unique recipe that includes the weight, flex, and also string type and tension. Numbers aside, there's also the ultra-subjective issue of feel. Our racquets need to tell us what's happening at contact so that we can distinguish between good and bad shots. Here's to good vibrations, right?

Just to help illustrate my earlier points about stiff frames and inherent power:

1. The HEAD Radical Pro has 1% less power at the very tip, compared to the Aeropro, because it is more flexible. But it's basically a wash everywhere else.

2. The Donnay Pro One actually has more power at the tip, pretty even if not a bit higher everywhere else, even though it is more flexible, lower swingweight, and has a smaller head. It has no business pulling these numbers, but it does. It should show less rebound power near the tip, and slight less overall but it has more somehow. Perhaps it's the solid core construction.

3. And the massive 377 SW Boris Becker 11 Special Edition is listed there just in case anybody had any doubts about SW making the largest contribution to racquet power.

4. Bit of history here. Before we started firing real balls at real racquets, the brightest minds in all of tennis physics came up with a formula to estimate racquet power. They assigned a value to stiffness, swing weight, flex, and length, assigned a power number, then these digits were published at the United States Racquet Stringers Association database. From looking at that list, you'd conclude that stiffness is a very big deal. For a very long time, that educated guess was the best we had. In the link below you can see how (in 2005) I answered questions about racquet power using some of those estimates.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=79904

5. However, when we started firing real balls at real racquets and measuring rebound velocity, the results were shocking, and the old estimate formulas were thrown out the window pretty quickly. Here is a quote from Rod Cross speaking directly of that moment of astonishment I'm describing: Quote: " Figure 2 shows RP (Rebound Power) vs. swingweight for all racquets. The result is simply amazing. Instead of having the 268 dots scattered all over the place, the dots line up perfectly along four different curved lines. The four curves correspond to different racquet lengths. All racquets of the same length lie on the same curve, with short racquets having a bigger RP than long racquets. The result in Figure 2 shows that any two racquets of the same length and the same swingweight will have exactly the same RP, regardless of their weights and regardless of their balance points. The inbuilt power of a racquet in the middle of the strings therefore depends only on the length and swingweight of the racquet, and on nothing else." -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2]

Translation : What Mr. Cross is saying there, is that if stiffness played a huge factor in racquet power, what you would see is a gradual rise in power as SW increases, but that the gradual rise would look more like a stock market chart, with peaks and valleys punctuating the power levels btwn stiff frames, and flexible frames. But the results don't look anything like that. The results show a nearly perfect relationship, a perfectly smooth arc because nothing else really matters near the center of the frame.

Nutshell: From this perspective, it's not so much a matter of making a gut wrenchingly difficult choice between Power vs Comfort, with a huge sacrifice at either end. It is more a matter of finding a racquet that feels good to hit with, within a specific swingweight/power range that suits your game. If you tend to swing slow and smooth, and that's your groove, then a higher SW frame might suit your style, and you'd get max power without incurring more unforced errors by swinging out of your comfort zone. You will get added stability on off center hits as an added bennie. If you want to swing faster, a lower sw frame will frame will help you do this. A faster swings speed might make for an increase in unforced errors, but you will get additional spin out of the trade off.

[..]

Jack

Hi Jack,
Yet again superb info, the best technical posts lately on here have come from you, great stuff, just a couple of questions please:-

1. So for the very fastest most powerful volleys, you will need a heavy and stiff racket, and need to hit the ball low in the hoop where the dampner would be, is that correct?

2. One thing you havn't discussed much is where the rackets flex. When measuring the standard racket RA, there is a lot of focus on the throat area of the racket. However I think the reason for the Donnay above, even though having a lower RA reading than the Babolat (mainly due to the Donnay's more flexy throat), demonstrating more power, is because the Donnay has a slightly stiffer hoop than the Babolat, and with the SW being very similar, this makes the difference in power, making the Donnay slightly more powerful than the apparent stiffer Babolat, what do you think about this please?

And I think if you used the "FlexInfinity" machine as described by Corners below, the Donnay would have a more flexible throat than the Babolat, and Babolat would have the slightly more flexible hoop. I really hope someone here buys one of these machines, to show us all some more examples!

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners

Here's a comparison of the C10 Pro and Organix 10 MP made by Flex Infinity, a company that sells special machinery for measuring racquet flex at many locations on the frame:

This really is a great thread. I think the key to finding a perfect racket is:

- find the right head size

- find the right swing weight (which is usually done with customization)

- tune the power with string bed tension/ stiffness (which is done with a mix of spacing/ string pattern) and type of string

- unless you want to risk injury, get a relatively soft racket

What is shocking to me is how Babolat has become so popular. Is this defiance against science, perhaps a post-modern thing and a rejection of objectivity (just joking. Sort of....).

Babolats are popular as a fair number of users are not restricted to notions of "players racquets" nor are they resigned to the use of racquets that they have been using for the past 10/15/20+ years. They are free to select what works best for them, while unencumbered by past practice or seemingly the perception on this board.

Babolats are also popular for the additional reason that they are used by some of today's most popular (and successful) players - all the while, using sticks that are effectively retail. Not saying that they are not customized post-production, but they start as being largely the same as their retail brethren. As such, there is confidence that they could be used at the highest level, if done so properly. This is drastically different than getting the seal of approval from some middle-aged suburbanite or a 3.0-3.5 weekend warrior....

Finally, they also lend themselves to easy customization, against which many of the most common complaints can be mitigated if not eliminated entirely. After all, it's this customization that renders Head/Wilson pro stocks so popular is it not? Or is it the endeavor to use what the pros use? Either way...

Why are Babolats not popular here, well, there is the lemming effect but also the fact that despite their perception of being easy to use, they are actually very demanding (hence the many, many comments of those unable to control the stick). The APD is more difficult to use than a Pro Tour 630 for instance, with the former being more restrictive in terms of how the racquet is used. Despite this, I have no hesitation which one has a higher ceiling if "feel" wasn't the end all be all.

Babolats are popular as a fair number of users are not restricted to notions of "players racquets" nor are they resigned to the use of racquets that they have been using for the past 10/15/20+ years. They are free to select what works best for them, while unencumbered by past practice or seemingly the perception on this board.

Babolats are also popular for the additional reason that they are used by some of today's most popular (and successful) players - all the while, using sticks that are effectively retail. Not saying that they are not customized post-production, but they start as being largely the same as their retail brethren. As such, there is confidence that they could be used at the highest level, if done so properly. This is drastically different than getting the seal of approval from some middle-aged suburbanite or a 3.0-3.5 weekend warrior....

Finally, they also lend themselves to easy customization, against which many of the most common complaints can be mitigated if not eliminated entirely. After all, it's this customization that renders Head/Wilson pro stocks so popular is it not? Or is it the endeavor to use what the pros use? Either way...

Why are Babolats not popular here, well, there is the lemming effect but also the fact that despite their perception of being easy to use, they are actually very demanding (hence the many, many comments of those unable to control the stick). The APD is more difficult to use than a Pro Tour 630 for instance, with the former being more restrictive in terms of how the racquet is used. Despite this, I have no hesitation which one has a higher ceiling if "feel" wasn't the end all be all.

No offense or anything, but that is a load of crap. Funny though.

__________________
5 Head PT57a 12.3 oz. 11 pts HL. Pair of PT167a for the wife. Nursing a semi, one hand both sides.